Various Stances on Gun Control Policy

Posts that are locked but open for perusal.

Moderator: phpBB2 - Administrators

How much control of privately owned firearms should we havein the USA?

None at all ( Bring on the Rocket Launcher!)
6
21%
Handgun licenses
1
3%
Licenses for ALL guns
13
45%
Nothing except hunting guns
6
21%
Spitball shooters make me nervous
3
10%
 
Total votes : 29

Postby LibraLabRat on Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:06 pm

Capellini wrote:John,

Even if its entirely symbolic, its too important a symbol to dispense with.

Libra,

A gun should not be easier to own than a car. If the gov't gets to know everyone who owns a car, require them to have a license and insurance, then at least the same should be required of firearms.

I think part of the excessive paranoia regarding the government knowing who owns a gun is part of the problem, actually.


This was kind of insulting. And since a gun and a car are two different classes of things, let me point this out:

You do not have a Constitutional right to a car, and the Government can control them any way they like. You do however have a Constitutional right to own a gun, and there are restrictions on government control.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby anon1mat0 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:08 pm

Let me throw another monkey wrench: Switzerland. For the ones not familiar with it I suggest reading this wikipedia article.

Why having a high density of guns compared to the total pupulation, they have far less firearm deaths (I believe that statement applies to Canada as well, may be the canadians can confirm that)?

There are more factors on crime and firearms death that simply gun ownership.
Nicolás
_________________
Violence is the diplomacy of the incompetent.
Hari Seldon

From Isaac Asimov's Foundation series
User avatar
anon1mat0
Gramigna Grand Admiral
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:30 pm
Location: South FL

Postby LibraLabRat on Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:10 pm

Capellini wrote:
LibraLabRat wrote:
SpisBoy wrote:Personally, I don't like guns. I see no reason for anyone to have a gun. When I think of people who want guns, I think of vigilante trigger-happy rednecks. Also I have never understood people who enjoy shooting things. I think gun rights are sort of outdated.

However, I understand that even though other people have different ideas than me, they have rights I should respect. Therefore, it should be legal to own guns as long as people have to get a permit and prove their responsibility.


Do you have to "prove your responsibility" to own a car? Not really, or there would not be about a hundred times more people getting killed from car accidents every year than from guns.

Gun crimes are committed by criminals. So the solution is better crime control, not more gun control.


It's called a road test. And a speeding ticket. And moving violations, insurance fees, points on your license, and the obligation to be re-tested if the DMV mandates it.

A BIG part of my problem with gun ownership is how many people who want to own a gun, but don't want to take responsibility for that ownership.

"Not only should I have the right to shoot someone who is trying to shoot me, I should have the right to shoot someone who I think is trying to shoot me, someone who my neighbor said might try and shoot me, someone I hallucinated tried to shoot me, someone who looked at me funny, someone who pointed a Bic pen menacingly in my direction, someone who sneezed on me . . . "

I don't think the right to own a gun should automatically confer the right to use it.


oK, I think I answered this farther down. A justified shooting is hard to prove in court. However, I think I would rather be in court than dead. And you are taking an extremist viewpoint here. Many thousands of people in this nation have concealed carry permits, and many hundreds of thousands of police officers carry guns everywhere, every day. Yet there are not mass killings over fender benders, are there?
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby darren996 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:11 pm

And I'll bet more people are killed every year because of people driving their cars drunk than are killed by guns!

We should ban Cars!

I'm printing bumper stickers right now! Oooo! Wait, those go on cars! Dammit! :mrgreen:
Suspicion breeds confidence!
User avatar
darren996
The Pan
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:18 pm
Location: Hell (okay it's America)

Postby LibraLabRat on Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:11 pm

Capellini wrote:Anyone who wants to shoot a wild boar with a handgun is an idiot.

Please, treat me like an idiot, and tell me what other rational purpose a gun has other than shooting something? And, keep in mind, I already said anyone who wants to shoot a wild boar (or a deer, a wolf, a pheasant, a quail) with a handgun is an idiot. Handguns are for shooting people.




*Praying someone mentions pistol whipping. Oh pretty please.


Calling people idiots is not any way to have a discussion.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby LibraLabRat on Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:16 pm

anon1mat0 wrote:Let me throw another monkey wrench: Switzerland. For the ones not familiar with it I suggest reading this wikipedia article.

Why having a high density of guns compared to the total pupulation, they have far less firearm deaths (I believe that statement applies to Canada as well, may be the canadians can confirm that)?

There are more factors on crime and firearms death that simply gun ownership.


Every Swiss citizen has an ASSAULT RIFLE in their home. I believe they favor SKSs. But no mass killings in the street. Must be the chocolate, or maybe the watches.....
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby beagle on Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:36 pm

Isn't the murder rate proportional to temperature?

"In New York in 1988 the temperature stayed above 32°C for 32 days and the murder rate soared by 75%."

According to one site I found. Might be a myth. Or nature's solution to global warming.
beagle
Brewmeister
 
Posts: 1930
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 3:12 am
Location: Under sail

Postby LibraLabRat on Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:42 pm

beagle wrote:Isn't the murder rate proportional to temperature?

"In New York in 1988 the temperature stayed above 32°C for 32 days and the murder rate soared by 75%."

According to one site I found. Might be a myth. Or nature's solution to global warming.


I dont think it is really a corelation. After all, it is hot in the South all the time, and there are more guns. THere should be tons of shootings every summer.

But there arent.

You also have to look at things such as power outtages, relative crime rate, ect....
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby anon1mat0 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:45 pm

I believe that there are different factors that apply, one is legislation (if you read the article every gun is registered in switzerland), training (every man is expected to have basic training), but I am sure that there are other cultural factors.

Someone else said it, LLR seems to be a responsible gun owner but the questions is what needs to be done to insure that every gun owner (or at least the majority) will be indeed responsible with his/her gun(s).

Personally, while I don't have a reason to own a gun, nor I am to attracted to the idea (unless we talk about swords! On that respect I have refrained myself to buy one because I fear one day my kid will be too tempted to play with it), I have moved to a more libertarian aproach to the matter: Hey! you want to have one, good if it works for you, and if you are so irresponsible to have one of your kids kill himself or someone else with it, I hope you remain the rest of your sorry days in jail.
Nicolás
_________________
Violence is the diplomacy of the incompetent.
Hari Seldon

From Isaac Asimov's Foundation series
User avatar
anon1mat0
Gramigna Grand Admiral
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:30 pm
Location: South FL

Postby LibraLabRat on Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:53 pm

anon1mat0 wrote:I believe that there are different factors that apply, one is legislation (if you read the article every gun is registered in switzerland), training (every man is expected to have basic training), but I am sure that there are other cultural factors.

Someone else said it, LLR seems to be a responsible gun owner but the questions is what needs to be done to insure that every gun owner (or at least the majority) will be indeed responsible with his/her gun(s).

Personally, while I don't have a reason to own a gun, nor I am to attracted to the idea (unless we talk about swords! On that respect I have refrained myself to buy one because I fear one day my kid will be too tempted to play with it), I have moved to a more libertarian aproach to the matter: Hey! you want to have one, good if it works for you, and if you are so irresponsible to have one of your kids kill himself or someone else with it, I hope you remain the rest of your sorry days in jail.


Which is mostly what I want as well. I am sick to the core of people on the coasts trying to legislate everything away from the rest of us.

Case in point: Cap, do you hunt? Have you ever hunted? IF not, how can you claim what does and doesnt have hunting purposes?
Also, many things were invented with the military in mind.....does that mean they are only military in nature? What about cell phones, satellite tech, prosthetic medicine, blood transfusions, reconstructive surgery?

Hmmmm.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby boghog on Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:28 pm

anon1mat0 wrote:Why having a high density of guns compared to the total pupulation, they have far less firearm deaths (I believe that statement applies to Canada as well, may be the canadians can confirm that)?


IIRC, the national homicide rate in Canada is around 1.0-1.5 per 100,000 population, and most of those are with guns (for discussion purposes, it's probably fair to assume that the proportion of gun-related murders to non-gun related murders is constant with Switzerland).

The city with the highest rate, Regina, is around 5.0 per 100,000 pop.

I had a link to a source before; I can dig it up again if anyone wants it.

What are the stats like for Switzerland?
Now Hypercaffeinated! Share and Enjoy!

Keep Saturn in Saturnalia!

You catch more flies with BS than you do with honey.
User avatar
boghog
Lord of Linguini
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:04 am
Location: Off yonder

Postby LibraLabRat on Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:32 pm

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles ... swiss.html

There you go.

Pretty telling, if you ask me.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby darren996 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:34 pm

I wouldn't mind seeing deaths per capita for guns and other weapons. Then how about comparing it to DUI manslaughter and maybe various accidents.
Suspicion breeds confidence!
User avatar
darren996
The Pan
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:18 pm
Location: Hell (okay it's America)

Postby LibraLabRat on Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:37 pm

darren996 wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing deaths per capita for guns and other weapons. Then how about comparing it to DUI manslaughter and maybe various accidents.


The Department of Justice is a good place to go, their website has LOTS of statistics.

But Cap doesnt want us comparing cars to guns. Evidently, it is not the same if a drunk driver kills someone as if someone shoots and kills a rapist.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby darren996 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:44 pm

I had an epiphany: *OMG! I'm insane!*


Shoot drunk drivers! Imagine how many people we'll save and put guns to good use!

*This is the voice in Darren's head! Don't listen to him for FSMs sake!*

How often does it really happen that someone shoots and kills a rapist?
Suspicion breeds confidence!
User avatar
darren996
The Pan
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:18 pm
Location: Hell (okay it's America)

PreviousNext

Return to Locked Posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests